Jing Wang1, Yu Zhao2, Jianjun Ren1, Yang Xu1. 1. Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. 2. Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. yutzhao@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pepsin in saliva has been proposed as a biomarker for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), but the results remain controversial. We assessed the diagnostic value of pepsin in saliva for LPR. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies in English that evaluated the utility of pepsin in saliva in the diagnosis of LPR, published up to 15 March 2017. We used Stata 12.0 to summarize the diagnostic indexes for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eleven eligible studies met the inclusion criteria. After the meta-analysis of included studies, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 64% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43-80%] and 68% (95% CI 55-78%), respectively; the positive (PLR) and negative (NLR) likelihood ratios were 2.0 (95% CI 1.4-2.9) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.87), respectively; the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 4 (95% CI 2-8); and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.71 (95% CI 0.67-0.75). CONCLUSION: Pepsin in saliva has moderate value in the diagnosis of LPR. The cutoff value used could affect the diagnostic value. Therefore, further investigations are required to find the optimal method to detect salivary pepsin in diagnosing LPR.
OBJECTIVE: Pepsin in saliva has been proposed as a biomarker for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), but the results remain controversial. We assessed the diagnostic value of pepsin in saliva for LPR. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies in English that evaluated the utility of pepsin in saliva in the diagnosis of LPR, published up to 15 March 2017. We used Stata 12.0 to summarize the diagnostic indexes for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eleven eligible studies met the inclusion criteria. After the meta-analysis of included studies, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 64% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43-80%] and 68% (95% CI 55-78%), respectively; the positive (PLR) and negative (NLR) likelihood ratios were 2.0 (95% CI 1.4-2.9) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.87), respectively; the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 4 (95% CI 2-8); and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.71 (95% CI 0.67-0.75). CONCLUSION: Pepsin in saliva has moderate value in the diagnosis of LPR. The cutoff value used could affect the diagnostic value. Therefore, further investigations are required to find the optimal method to detect salivary pepsin in diagnosing LPR.
Authors: Elif Saritas Yuksel; Shih-Kuang S Hong; Vicki Strugala; James C Slaughter; Marion Goutte; C Gaelyn Garrett; Peter W Dettmar; Michael F Vaezi Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Sunitha Potluri; Frank Friedenberg; Henry P Parkman; Alan Chang; Robert MacNeal; Christopher Manus; Matthew Q Bromer; Aslam Malik; Robert S Fisher; Thomas Nugent; Vinod K Thangada; Friedrich Kueppers; Larry S Miller Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Samantha Decalmer; Rachel Stovold; Lesley A Houghton; Jeff Pearson; Chris Ward; Angela Kelsall; Helen Jones; Kevin McGuinness; Ashley Woodcock; Jaclyn A Smith Journal: Chest Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Giannicola Iannella; Giovanni Di Nardo; Rocco Plateroti; Paolo Rossi; Andrea Maria Plateroti; Paola Mariani; Giuseppe Magliulo Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Philip O Katz; Kerry B Dunbar; Felice H Schnoll-Sussman; Katarina B Greer; Rena Yadlapati; Stuart Jon Spechler Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: C Prakash Gyawali; Dustin A Carlson; Joan W Chen; Amit Patel; Robert J Wong; Rena H Yadlapati Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 12.045
Authors: Yong Feng Wang; Chang Qing Yang; Ying Xuan Chen; Ai Ping Cao; Xiao Feng Yu; Yang Yu; Zi Yan Zhang; Xi Zhong Shen; Fei Liu; Lan Zhong; Ying Xin Wang; Zhan Ju Liu; Yan Hong Shi; Jie Zhong; Jing Nan Li; Yu Lan; Rhianna K Lenham; Andrew D Woodcock; Peter W Dettmar; Jing-Yuan Fang Journal: J Dig Dis Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.325
Authors: Jerome R Lechien; Sven Saussez; Vinciane Muls; Maria R Barillari; Carlos M Chiesa-Estomba; Stéphane Hans; Petros D Karkos Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Rocco Plateroti; Marta Sacchetti; Giuseppe Magliulo; Andrea Maria Plateroti; Annalisa Pace; Antonietta Moramarco; Alessandro Lambiase; Alice Bruscolini Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2020-09-15